In response to complaints regarding the amount of time the public has to study the new proposal, the city suspends the public meeting for three weeks. And, then throws up 11 new files, to a new proposal, 2 days before the meeting.

Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...

In response to complaints regarding the amount of time the public has to study the new proposal, the city suspends the public meeting for three weeks. And, then throws up 11 new files, to a new proposal, 2 days before the meeting.

Nah, think you are reading this wrong. My take is that Trio could see there was still serious opposition to the wishy washy proposal that eliminated water slide language and realized that the problem was not going to go away. I honestly think that they "last minuted" this newest revision on the City and the City is just trying to salvage the planned and advertised meeting. With 2 days still until the meeting, those heavily invested in opposition will have plenty of time to review the language.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Drip_Torch wrote:Yeah maybe, but I don't think either of them have smelt the coffee.

Ha, ha ha ... I really did that. Oh well, I'm sure you got my point and it wasn't city should attempt to refine ore from coffee.

twobits wrote:Nah, think you are reading this wrong. My take is that Trio could see there was still serious opposition to the wishy washy proposal that eliminated water slide language and realized that the problem was not going to go away. I honestly think that they "last minuted" this newest revision on the City and the City is just trying to salvage the planned and advertised meeting. With 2 days still until the meeting, those heavily invested in opposition will have plenty of time to review the language.

Yeah, maybe. I've looked at the language and there's a few questions. In your view, what is it? $240 grand and one or two years rent free on the marina? I'd need a little more time to formulate an opinion, but I've been doing other things for the last couple of days and haven't really had the opportunity to really set my mind to it. I guess, I'm not that heavily invested.

I haven't decided if I'll go tonight or not. The first read, suggests the whole clock has been set back, so it's probably going to be more of an information meeting than anything else.

Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...

southy wrote:Well it's Thursday, December 1st - anyone got tickets to tonight's Trio/City Meeting they want to sell? Should be a good show!! Just not sure if it's a horror flick or a new Christmas classic.

This is likely a classic case where Council is going to make a decision (already have, most likely; just not in public) and they know it won't be popular, so they limit the venue seating. (150 people throwing insults is better than 700). They could have easily used the T&C centre, Community Theatre, etc (we own both of them) or pretty sure that David P. would give them the use of a convention room at the Lakeside. I wonder if our newly endorsed NDP candidate will beak off tonight about holding a Referendum or will keep his trap shut. Going to be interesting.

Kelowna was number four in the top places to work in Canada, Penticton was forty something, maybe if the waterslides go ahead Penticton could create a few temporary jobs and move up a spot on the list. (Kidding of course).

fall wrote:Kelowna was number four in the top places to work in Canada, Penticton was forty something, maybe if the waterslides go ahead Penticton could create a few temporary jobs and move up a spot on the list. (Kidding of course).

Kelowna may be number four in top places to work in Canada - but as far as best places to live it leaves a lot to be desired.

I was curious to see which side of the fence the law was going to come down on, if in fact commercial ventures on city owned park land are legal or not. It would clear up a lot of crap should we ever be faced with a similar situation down the road.

fluffy wrote:I was curious to see which side of the fence the law was going to come down on, if in fact commercial ventures on city owned park land are legal or not. It would clear up a lot of crap should we ever be faced with a similar situation down the road.

This is why the city should have responded immediately to the suit instead of trying to negotiate a settlement with Save Skaha Park, even if they were reconsidering the waterslide portion of the lease. The city probably would have had the full financial backing of the UBCM as this would have had ramifications throughout the province and even the country. Every commercial entity on park land in the province, from the smallest concession to the Vancouver Aquarium, was put at risk with this lawsuit.

Exactly. Not unlike many "environmental" protests, the instigators of this lawsuit had a pretty narrow field of vision. Their position was not ignoble by any means, but it was poorly thought out as to it's potential to do harm in the bigger picture.

Darkre wrote:This is why the city should have responded immediately to the suit instead of trying to negotiate a settlement with Save Skaha Park, even if they were reconsidering the waterslide portion of the lease. The city probably would have had the full financial backing of the UBCM as this would have had ramifications throughout the province and even the country. Every commercial entity on park land in the province, from the smallest concession to the Vancouver Aquarium, was put at risk with this lawsuit.

(They say it takes two to tango, I assume the waltz is best performed by an instep couple, as well. Me, I'm more into the energetic free expression known as Krump.)

Those impugned sections of the Community Charter Act are still there and open to lobby by the city or the UBCM. Don't see any reason why the city, or the Union couldn't start working with our Provincial authorities to have them changed?

Honestly, I really don't agree with you. I believe the Interpretation Act and the Community Charter Act serve their purposes and the intent has been fulfilled. Of course, the Vancouver Aquarium was never in any jeopardy - Vancouver is chartered under its own act, and I don't see how either action against the city could have had any effect whatsoever on commercial entities in parks throughout the Province. Both actions seemed to question the commercial disposition of parkland. A valid question in my view.

I really don't see this situation as any different than 10 km/h over the speed limit. You can get away with it, you can even convince yourself it's legal, if you want. But in the absence of forethought, the day you get caught, is the day your going to have to come to terms with all the potential costs.

Last edited by Drip_Torch on Dec 11th, 2016, 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...

Darkre wrote: The city probably would have had the full financial backing of the UBCM as this would have had ramifications throughout the province and even the country. Every commercial entity on park land in the province, from the smallest concession to the Vancouver Aquarium, was put at risk with this lawsuit.

I would beg to differ on that analogy. The examples you have sited are taxpayer built assets, not private for profit corporations looking to take advantage of cheap prime real estate. Concession stands are owned by the taxpayer. Tenders go out for the operation of these assets on a regular and timely short term lease basis. The value of the land and the location are regularly reflected in the offers to operate them from the bidding process that is transparent to the public. Penticton has deviated from this norm by creating a new private/public partnership on parklands. They did it with the Lakawana Concession by granting a long term lease in exchange for the lessee to invest capital. That flew by with little or no opposition because it was already a Concession that the City had neglected for years and was decrepit. That made sense. The same could be said of the otherwise low value lands occupied by Loco Landing. The same is also true of the Marina, if and only if it remains just the Marina and deos not require an expansion into parklands or any other side deals for commercial expansion beyond the Marina lands footprint. I am not naive , nor is the majority of the public to think that all City lands, including designated parklands, should be exempt from public/private partnerships and the success of the save the park society would not have entrenched that notion into common law. What it would have done is perhaps entrenched the requirement for a proper and comprehensive consultation with the true owners of the lands before signing 39 year leases of Crown Jewel Lands with the fallback argument that we we elected 2 yrs ago and given the power to do so so F you.I know when and how this whole problem started. It was the City's first Request for Proposal's for what was considered an under utilized public asset. Despite the success of the current operator and business, it was a correct assessment. The City did not have the funds to improve it and thus the RFP. The mistake made was just a couple of innocent lines in that RFP that said "might consider an expansion of the Marina Lands footprint". It was done with the best intentions I am sure that if a proposal required a little give, it might be accommodated. The thought process was if a truly good RFP response came back, you would not be shot down because of the need for a few hundred sq meters of land footprint or realignment of entrance way. Bottom line....enter Trio....that seized on the "might consider an expansion of the Marina Lands footprint" and developed a really stupid plan that enveloped the whole east end of Skaha Park and a really stupid new Mayor and Council whose eyes glazed over in wonderment at the concept drawings and bogus revenue streams the City would reap. The precedent that should be set here is for the voting taxpayers. That would be that it is good to vote for change and to vote for a different vision but make dam sure that the change you vote for can run a business with a 100 million dollar a year budget and not a used record store owner, a bartender, and a social activist that thinks he is entitled to full pull medical coverage for a part time job. In the end, ya get what you voted for and we got it in spades for 4 years. I would suggest people remember this in May 2017.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Best news in a long time. Unfortunately, it will cost the taxpayers plenty (200 grand plus another 150+ in legal expenses). Am sure that next Municipal election the public will enjoy Karma. The mayor says they will listen to the public more next time on parkland issues. They should always listen to the public on every major issue and the Waterslides and parkland at Skaha was one of the biggest of the decade. https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... -with-Trio